3 news agencies refuse to distribute Obama photo

[DainBramaged]

Three news agencies refused to distribute White House-provided photos of President Barack Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, arguing that access should have been provided to news photographers.

The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse said the White House was breaking with long-standing tradition in not allowing news photographers to capture the president at work in the Oval Office on his first day.

"We are not distributing what are, in effect, visual press releases," said Michael Oreskes, managing editor for U.S. news at the AP.

The news agencies have used White House-provided images in the past for areas in the White House where media access is generally not permitted, such as the Situation Room or the private residence. But they contend that the Oval Office is the public office of the president and photographers should have access rather than rely on a government handout.

"Using these photos would be a major break with established precedent and would compromise the long-held tradition of independent photo coverage of the president and the White House by the major news agencies," said Courtney Dolan, spokeswoman for Thomson Reuters.

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2009/01/22/3_news_agencies_refuse_to_distribute_obama_photo_1232633056/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Theater+and+arts+news

[ZombieHorde]

1. Video was taken and can be seen on youtube. nt

[parasim]

2. Wow. A lot of people just don't like change, do they?

nt

[Luminous Animal]

9. What? Now we're against press access?

I actually think they have a legitimate gripe.

[sandnsea]

14. If it were something important

100 different people taking the exact same pictures isn't "press access". It's a photo op.

[Luminous Animal]

23. It wouldn't be 100 different people...

and yes, it is a photo op. An historic photo op which is also part of a photo journalist's bread and butter.

[sandnsea]

24. So it's all about the "bread and butter"?

And there's no money in pissing off the President about war lies and spying and environmental ruin - so it doesn't get done - is that it?

[rwheeler31]

3. These people are strange.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. tsk tsk..Aren't we being a bit petty here? If you can't take the pics yourself, you just won't use

them? Too bad for you....

[Lex]

5. They are refusing to use White House-provided press releases?

--visual press releases (they say), but still, I must ask, SINCE WHEN?

Over the last 8 years they've been the biggest purveyors of White House press releases EVER.

[gratuitous]

16. Guess who got Burst o' Ethics for Christmas!

Are these the same presstitutes who covered the Bush administration for eight years, and never breathed a word about scripted press conferences, papered audiences, Potemkin brush clearing, First Amendment Zones, and all the rest of the propagandistic folderol?

What. A. Bunch. Of. Bullshit.

[liberalhistorian]

25. A-fucking-Men! That was exactly what I

was thinking. Fucking hypocritical media whores, it's becoming very clear what they consider their real purpose to be.

[KansDem]

48. Yeah, I often wondered how the Presstitutes felt about being called "in order" by Bush...

...with scripted answers to their scripted questions?

I guess they're okay with it as long as the photos are "real."

[Coexist]

38. I guess PRINT press releases are a different story.

unreal.

[Enrique]

45. Reuters, AP and AFP have been?

have they?

[Lex]

53. They all have been.

nt

[Evoman]

6. "You can give us fake news releases, but please let us take the pictures for realz"

[liberalhistorian]

26. LOL!

No kidding.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. They do realize that the President isn't actually working while they're taking those photographs...

So what's the big fucking deal if the posed photograph comes from the White House rather than from them?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. First day? Hell, he's not even President!

I heard it on Fox!

[spotbird]

8. They are absolutely correct

Power corrupts...and all that.

[alittlelark]

13. Uh..... yeah....

:crazy:

[sandnsea]

10. Didn't a whistleblower just say we were all spied on?

:shrug:

And they're whining about pictures?

[madeline_con]

17. we were all spied on?

"Over the next several months, however, Tice was frustrated in his attempts to testify before Congress, had his credibility attacked by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in an apparent attempt at intimidation."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whistleblower_Bushs_NSA_targeted_reporters_0121.html

Proof Billo and Limpballs are working for the evil empire.

[orleans]

33. exactly. it's against their ethics to cover a REAL story.n/t

[EFerrari]

11. They had no problem printing BushCo FAXES, right, AP swine?

Like when you wrote that Bruce Ivins was going to make big money off of his vaccine? Or, when you said Chavez wouldn't allow election monitors? Or, the other brazillion press releases you printed off? Or, like last week when Reuters printed the FAKE numbers of detainee recidivists?

FUCK YOU, we're onto you.

[DainBramaged]

12. The AP, a "news" organization that did more hit pieces on Obama than Faux Views

Fuck 'em. The World gets it's news from the internets now, and newspapers are dead.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

15. Evolve or die, dumbasses. nt

[Historic NY]

18. Give them no access then...

[stillcool]

19. oops..

missed this part....

Vincent Amaluy, director of photography for North and South America for AFP, said he suspected first-day confusion was more at play than an attempt to clamp down on access

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Actually this is a legit complaint

[EFerrari]

35. Right. They run IDF footage complete with titles without comment

but they won't take stills from the Obama White House for a non-event.

That's ridiculous.

[defendandprotect]

21. We should remember that all the news services changed hands in the

last 10/20 years -- and not for the better.

We really should identify the funding behind them ---

This is aside from however you see this complaint -- I'm 50/50 on it except it's

blatant hypocrisy when most of the "news" has been propaganda or lies by the

Bush/Cheney criminals.

[southernyankeebelle]

22. How sad

I guess they didn't listen to President Obama's speech. I believe he told people to put their childish ways away for good. I would tell them to grow up and stop whinning.

[SmileyRose]

27. Oh come on, they are just trying to be responsible journalists.

You know, like how they made a point of reporting the truth all the while GW was telling America that Saddam had tons and tons of WMD and was the mastermind of 911 and was going to nuke Kansas any day.

Oh wait.

[shintao]

32. Actually the Big Media Lie was.......

The UN inspectors left Baghdad on their own, frustrated with Saddam.

THE MEDIA REPORTED ON WHY THEY WERE LEAVING

The Bush says the Evil Axis Saddam threw the UN Inspectors out of baghdad, as he built propaganda for the war.

THE MEDIA REPORTS THE EVIL SADDAM THREW THE UN INSPECTORS OUT & REFUSED TO LET THEM SEARCH FOR WMDS.


And that is the big lie the media joined hands on and reported, just 4-6 mos later.

[annabanana]

56. This is why I take everything they say with a grain of salt

and a great deal of scepticism...

[Spike89]

28. It's legit

The government, even when it's headed by a democrat, shouldn't hinder access of the press. I didn't think it was right that Bush did it, and it isn't right now. Although print journalism is very sick, anyone that thinks the Internet is replacing it doesn't really understand news and reporting. Almost all the "news" being reported on the Internet was pulled from a news service, major newspaper, or sometimes television news departments. Bloggers have tons of news opinions, sometimes even scoops on a piece of news, but it takes a lot of money to pay for a staff of journalists that can regularly find and develop stories. \
The point is that journalism is a profession and it takes a lot of time and work. If we ever get to the point where only hobbyists provide our reporting, all hope is lost. I hate corporate news, but professional news is something we should be willing to pay for.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. I'll take the unpopular stance

I think that access should be allowed. I think they had a legitimate complaint (this despite the fact that AP hasn't been the neutral player they should be). And I put some stock in the AFP photographer's sense that this was more a matter of confusion than a denial of access. This is a small thing, compared with the many wonderful things the new admin has already done in two days, but I hope it's corrected.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. It's petty, but it will be corrected nonetheless, I'm sure. n/t

[DainBramaged]

37. I disagree. I think this is just part of the RNC plan to pick at Obama's Presidency

any way they can, and the AP, which PROVED to be nothing more than their mouthpiece during the election, is juts being dickweeds.

[Marr]

31. After 8 years of running White House press releases as news, this seems odd.

[Enrique]

46. Reuters, AP and AFP have run WH press releases as news?

I didn't know that. Is it true?

[KansDem]

50. Here's one instance...

Talon News Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon, who accused his colleagues in the press corps of "work off of the talking points" provided by Democrats, has used Bush administration and Republican National Committee (RNC) documents and releases in his Talon "news reports" verbatim and without attribution. In at least two of his articles, Gannon lifted more than half of the text directly from GOP "fact sheets." Moreover, as Media Matters for America has pointed out, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that Gannon repeated a fabricated assertion of Limbaugh's in a question he asked of President Bush at a January 26 press conference.

--more--
Media Matters

I'm sure there are many others. They're not called "Media Whores" for nothing...

[Enrique]

51. yeah I remember that

and numerous local TV stations ran government-created propaganda videos as news, and Fox News provides republican talking points for their "talent" every day.

But what does any of that have to do with my question?

[KansDem]

52. Oh, I see. You asked specifically about Reuters, AP and AFP

Well, let's see where the NSA wiretapping story is going. Could be many "respected" news agencies (including Reuters, AP and AFP) were blackmailed into running Bushita propaganda as "news."

[orleans]

34. love the pic you put up. n/t

[Contrary1]

36. So what the hell are these?

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/President+Barack+Obama+First+Day+White+House+20u9Uyz-V2rl.jpg

More: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/xo7ERIcUyco/President+Barack+Obama+First+Day+White+House

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. These were taken by the official WH photographer. He was on the Today Show this AM.

[DainBramaged]

41. I guess he isn't ideologically pure enough for AP

:rofl:

[LWolf]

42. Does the WH

issue directives to the press about what they are to print, or not?

If so, I see a real problem with the first amendment. Why bother to take an oath about protecting and defending the Constitution if it's not authentic?

If it isn't a directive, it's not a refusal. It's a choice.

I think they have a point. I don't want to see further manipulation of news media by the powerful.

[DainBramaged]

43. Wait, you think the WH sending a photo of Obama to the press is manipulation?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LWolf]

55. Not at all.

I said that not using it is a choice, not a refusal, since it's not a directive. Nice try. :eyes:

I think that anyone sending anything to the media to disseminate while excluding them from the event in question might be manipulating.

I think that journalists, who have shown to be spineless during the last 8 years, showing signs of standing up is a good thing.

It might not be a journalistic conspiracy against Obama. It might even be that they feel safer to do so now that he's in the white house.

Either way, that's just speculation. I'm still glad to see people actually stand up for themselves with the WH.

[PVnRT]

54. They aren't forcing them to use the WH provided photo

The AP and others are just pissed off that they weren't in the room. Apparently, now they're supposed to do their duty as a free press after eight years of loafing.

[Enrique]

44. good for Reuters, AP, AFP

:toast:

[onenote]

47. I'm a huge Obama fan, but I'd like to see an explanation for why they did what they did

If you're going to break with tradition, and do so in a way that arguably limits press access, you better be prepared to offer a defense of your decision, imo.

Maybe there is a defense for the decision, but I haven't seen one, either from the WH or from anyone on this thread.

[undeterred]

49. Well, sounds like somebody's got to learn who's The Boss.

[ogneopasno]

57. I agree with them.

[MagickMuffin]

58. Didn't you know the press IS ready to hold the POTUS feet to the fire?.?.?

I've heard numerous stories about how they were so lax with Mad king Boy George, that they are NOW ready to be proactive and make sure they question President Obama on everything he does.

It really is too bad that they didn't think they needed to be proactive when it came to the Bush Cheney Regime•Cartel•Cabal, and how the Bush Cheney Regime•Cartel•Cabal ruined our country's reputation.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this, par for the course.

Remember Bill and Monica 24•7•365.

Carter even had a daily tally for how many days there were for the hostages.

Bush Cheney Regime•Cartel•Cabal, not much there to report.

[DainBramaged]

59. I love how many people here SIDE with AP and the other media toadies

goes to show ya, DU, not just for Progressives any more.

[MagickMuffin]

60. The AP and so many other "News" outlets lost credibility with me a long long time ago

Especially after Clinton, the 2000 (S)election and everything that followed after that. September 11, no real reporting about how and why it happened. No questions were ever brought up about the false info we were getting. The lead up to the Iraqi Invasion, WMD, no WMD, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam gassed his own people.

Where was the outrage when Saddam actually gassed them 20 years prior to our outrage, when the Reagan MisAdministration sold Saddam the weapons that were used to gas his own people?.?.?

The Cable News were running ads from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, (how many here questioned these adverts) Halliburton, and numerous Oil companies leading up to the Iraqi invasion.

The Press didn't seem to concerned when Mad king Boy George joked about WMD at their precious White House Correspondence Dinner. Why Mad king Boy George had them :rofl:
Yeah, real funny when people are dying for a war BASED upon LIES. It still has me in stitches. What a knee slapper.


We were even told by Mad king Boy George "That we're going to Catapult the Propaganda." And boy oh boy did they ever. We were sold a bill of "goods" and the press played ALL of us for fools.

[DainBramaged]

61. The examples are overwhelming, but, DU steps up to the plate to defend 'their' right

to an 'open' Presidency. You can't make this shit up. :hi: